Chapter III · (continued 2)

Causality as "regular succession" does not apply to conscious states and cannot disprove free will.

We perceive physical phenomena, and these phenomena obey laws. This means: (i) that phenomena a, b, c, d, previously perceived, can occur again in the same shape; (2) that a certain phenomenon P, which appeared after the conditions a, b, c, d, and after these conditions only, will not fail to recur as soon as the same conditions are again present. If the principle of causality told us nothing more, as the empiricists claim, we should willingly grant these philosophers that their principle is derived from experience; but it would no longer prove anything against our freedom. For it would then be understood that definite antecedents give rise to a definite consequent wherever experience shows us this regular succession; but the question is whether this regularity is found in the domain of consciousness too, and that is the whole problem of free will. We grant you for a moment that the principle of causality is nothing but the summing up of the uniform and unconditional successions observed in the past: by what right, then, do you apply it to those deep-seated states of consciousness in which no regular succession has yet been discovered, since the attempt to foresee them ever fails? And how can you base on this principle your argument to prove the determinism of inner states, when, according to you, the determinism of observed facts is the sole source of the principle itself? In truth, when the empiricists make use of the principle of causality to disprove human freedom, they take the word cause in a new meaning, which is the very meaning given to it by common sense.

To assert the regular succession of two phenomena is, indeed, to recognize that, the first being given, we already catch sight of the second. But this wholly subjective connexion between two ideas is not enough for common sense. It seems to common sense that, if the idea of the second phenomenon is already implied in that of the first, the second phenomenon itself must exist objectively, in some way or other, within the first phenomenon. And common sense was bound to come to this conclusion, because to distinguish exactly between an objective connexion of phenomena and a subjective association between their ideas presupposes a fairly high degree of philosophical culture. We thus pass imperceptibly from the first meaning to the second, and we picture the causal relation as a kind of prefiguring of the future phenomenon in its present conditions. Now this prefiguring can be understood in two very different ways, and it is just here that the ambiguity begins.

Causality, as the prefiguring of the future phenomenon in its present conditions, in one form destroys concrete phenomena.

In the first place, mathematics furnishes us with one type of this kind of prefiguring. The very movement by which we draw the circumference of a circle on a sheet of paper generates all the mathematical properties of this figure: in this sense an unlimited number of theorems can be said to pre-exist within the definition, although they will be spread out in duration for the mathematician who deduces them. It is true that we are here in the realm of pure quantity and that, as geometrical properties can be expressed in the form of equations, it is easy to understand how the original equation, expressing the fundamental property of the figure, is transformed into an unlimited number of new ones, all virtually contained in the first. On the contrary, physical phenomena, which succeed one another and are perceived by our senses, are distinguished by quality not less than by quantity, so that there would be some difficulty in at once declaring them equivalent to one another. But, just because they are perceived through our sense-organs, we seem justified in ascribing their qualitative differences to the impression which they make on us and in assuming, behind the heterogeneity of our sensations, a homogeneous physical universe. Thus, we shall strip matter of the concrete qualities with which our senses clothe it, colour, heat, resistance, even weight, and we shall finally find ourselves confronted with homogeneous extensity, space without body. The only step then remaining will be to describe figures in space, to make them move according to mathematically formulated laws, and to explain the apparent qualities of matter by the shape, position, and motion of these geometrical figures. Now, position is given by a system of fixed magnitudes and motion is expressed by a law, i.e. by a constant relation between variable magnitudes; but shape is a mental image, and, however tenuous, however transparent we assume it to be, it still constitutes, in so far as our imagination has, so to speak, the visual perception of it, a concrete and therefore irreducible quality of matter. It will therefore be necessary to make a clean sweep of this image itself and replace it by the abstract formula of the movement which gives rise to the figure. Picture then algebraical relations getting entangled in one another, becoming objective by this very entanglement, and producing, by the mere effect of their complexity, concrete, visible, and tangible reality,—you will be merely drawing the consequences of the principle of causality, understood in the sense of an actual prefiguring of the future in the present. The scientists of our time do not seem, indeed, to have carried abstraction so far, except perhaps Lord Kelvin. This acute and profound physicist assumed that space is filled with a homogeneous and incompressible fluid in which vortices move, thus producing the properties of matter: these vortices are the constituent elements of bodies; the atom thus becomes a movement, and physical phenomena are reduced to regular movements taking place within an incompressible fluid. But, if you will notice that this fluid is perfectly homogeneous, that between its parts there is neither an empty interval which separates them nor any difference whatever by which they can be distinguished, you will see that all movement taking place within this fluid is really equivalent to absolute immobility, since before, during, and after the movement nothing changes and nothing has changed in the whole. The movement which is here spoken of is thus not a movement which actually takes place, but only a movement which is pictured mentally: it is a relation between relations. It is implicitly supposed, though perhaps not actually realized, that motion has something to do with consciousness, that in space there are only simultaneities, and that the business of the physicist is to provide us with the means of calculating these relations of simultaneity for any moment of our duration. Nowhere has mechanism been carried further than in this system, since the very shape of the ultimate elements of matter is here reduced to a movement. But the Cartesian physics already anticipated this interpretation; for if matter is nothing, as Descartes claimed, but homogeneous extensity, the movements of the parts of this extensity can be conceived through the abstract law which governs them or through an algebraical equation between variable magnitudes, but cannot be represented under the concrete form of an image. And it would not be difficult to prove that the more the progress of mechanical explanations enables us to develop this conception of causality and therefore to relieve the atom of the weight of its sensible qualities, the more the concrete existence of the phenomena of nature tends to vanish into algebraical smoke.

It thus leads to Descartes' physics and Spinoza's metaphysics, but cannot bind future to present without neglecting duration.

Thus understood, the relation of causality is a necessary relation in the sense that it will indefinitely approach the relation of identity, as a curve approaches its asymptote. The Principle of identity is the absolute law of our consciousness: it asserts that what is thought is thought at the moment when we think it: and what gives this principle its absolute necessity is that it does not bind the future to the present, but only the present to the present: it expresses the unshakable confidence that consciousness feels in itself, so long as, faithful to its duty, it confines itself to declaring the apparent present state of the mind. But the principle of causality, in so far as it is supposed to bind the future to the present, could never take the form of a necessary principle; for the successive moments of real time are not bound up with one another, and no effort of logic will succeed in proving that what has been will be or will continue to be, that the same antecedents will always give rise to identical consequents. Descartes understood this so well that he attributed the regularity of the physical world and the continuation of the same effects to the constantly renewed grace of Providence; he built up, as it were, an instantaneous physics, intended for a universe the whole duration of which might as well be confined to the present moment. And Spinoza maintained that the indefinite series of phenomena, which takes for us the form of a succession in time, was equivalent, in the absolute, to the divine unity: he thus assumed, on the one hand, that the relation of apparent causality between phenomena melted away into a relation of identity in the absolute, and, on the other, that the indefinite duration of things was all contained in a single moment, which is eternity. In short, whether we study Cartesian physics, Spinozistic metaphysics, or the scientific theories of our own time, we shall find everywhere the same anxiety to establish a relation of logical necessity between cause and effect, and we shall see that this anxiety shows itself in a tendency to transform relations of succession into relations of inherence, to do away with active duration, and to substitute for apparent causality a fundamental identity.

The necessary determination of phenomena implies non-duration; but we endure and are therefore free.

Now, if the development of the notion of causality, understood in the sense of necessary connexion, leads to the Spinozistic or Cartesian conception of nature, inversely, all relation of necessary determination established between successive phenomena may be supposed to arise from our perceiving, in a confused form, some mathematical mechanism behind their heterogeneity. We do not claim that common sense has any intuition of the kinetic theories of matter, still less perhaps of a Spinozistic mechanism; but it will be seen that the more the effect seems necessarily bound up with the cause, the more we tend to put it in the cause itself, as a mathematical consequence in its principle, and thus to cancel the effect of duration. That under the influence of the same external conditions I do not behave to-day as I behaved yesterday is not at all surprising, because I change, because I endure. But things considered apart from our perception do not seem to endure; and the more thoroughly we examine this idea, the more absurd it seems to us to suppose that the same cause should not produce to-day the effect which it produced yesterday. We certainly feel, it is true, that although things do not endure as we do ourselves, nevertheless there must be some reason why phenomena are seen to succeed one another instead of being set out all at once. And this is why the notion of causality, although it gets indefinitely near that of identity, will never seem to us to coincide with it, unless we conceive clearly the idea of a mathematical mechanism or unless some subtle metaphysics removes our very legitimate scruples on the point. It is no less obvious that our belief in the necessary determination of phenomena by one another becomes stronger in proportion as we are more inclined to regard duration as a subjective form of our consciousness. In other words, the more we tend to set up the causal relation as a relation of necessary determination, the more we assert thereby that things do not endure like ourselves. This amounts to saying that the more we strengthen the principle of causality, the more we emphasize the difference between a physical series and a psychical one. Whence, finally, it would result (however paradoxical the opinion may seem) that the assumption of a relation of mathematical inherence between external phenomena ought to bring with it, as a natural or at least as a plausible consequence, the belief in human free will. But this last consequence will not concern us for the moment: we are merely trying here to trace out the first meaning of the word causality, and we think we have shown that the prefiguring of the future in the present is easily conceived under a mathematical form, thanks to a certain conception of duration which, without seeming to be so, is fairly familiar to common sense.

Prefiguring, as having an idea of a future act which we cannot realize without effort, does not involve necessary determination.

But there is a prefiguring of another kind, still more familiar to our mind, because immediate prefiguring, as consciousness gives us the type of it. We go, in fact, through successive states of consciousness, and although the later was not contained in the earlier, we had before us at the time a more or less confused idea of it. The actual realization of this idea, however, did not appear as certain but merely as possible. Yet, between the idea and the action, some hardly perceptible intermediate processes come in, the whole mass of which takes for us a form sui generis, which is called the feeling of effort. And from the idea to the effort, from the effort to the act, the progress has been so continuous that we cannot say where the idea and the effort end, and where the act begins. Hence we see that in a certain sense we may still say here that the future was prefigured in the present; but it must be added that this prefiguring is very imperfect, since the future action of which we have the present idea is conceived as realizable but not as realized, and since, even when we plan the effort necessary to accomplish it, we feel that there is still time to stop. If, then, we decide to picture the causal relation in this second form, we can assert a priori that there will no longer be a relation of necessary determination between the cause and the effect, for the effect will no longer be given in the cause. It will be there only in the state of pure possibility and as a vague idea which perhaps will not be followed by the corresponding action. But we shall not be surprised that this approximation is enough for common sense if we think of the readiness with which children and primitive people accept the idea of a whimsical Nature, in which caprice plays a part no less important than necessity. Nay, this way of conceiving causality will be more easily understood by the general run of people, since it does not demand any effort of abstraction and only implies a certain analogy between the outer and the inner world, between the succession of objective phenomena and that of our subjective states.

This second conception of causality leads to Leibniz as the first led to Spinoza.

In truth, this second way of conceiving the relation of cause to effect is more natural than the first in that it immediately satisfies the need of a mental image. If we look for the phenomenon Β within the phenomenon A, which regularly precedes it, the reason is that the habit of associating the two images ends in giving us the idea of the second phenomenon wrapped up, as it were, in that of the first. It is natural, then, that we should push this objectification to its furthest limit and that we should make the phenomenon A itself into a psychic state, in which the phenomenon Β is supposed to be contained as a very vague idea. We simply suppose, thereby, that the objective connexion of the two phenomena resembles the subjective association which suggested the idea of it to us. The qualities of things are thus set up as actual states, somewhat analogous to those of our own self; the material universe is credited with a vague personality which is diffused through space and which, although not exactly endowed with a conscious will, is led on from one state to another by an inner impulse, a kind of effort. Such was ancient hylozoism, a half-hearted and even contradictory hypothesis, which left matter its extensity although attributing to it real conscious states, and which spread the qualities of matter throughout extensity while treating these qualities as inner i.e. simple states. It was reserved for Leibniz to do away with this contradiction and to show that, if the succession of external qualities or phenomena is understood as the succession of our own ideas, these qualities must be regarded as simple states or perceptions, and the matter which supports them as an unextended monad, analogous to our soul. But, if such be the case, the successive states of matter cannot be perceived from the outside any more than our own psychic states; the hypothesis of pre-established harmony must be introduced in order to explain how these inner states are representative of one another. Thus, with our second conception of the relation of causality we reach Leibniz, as with the first we reached Spinoza. And in both cases we merely push to their extreme limit or formulate with greater precision two half-hearted and confused ideas of common sense.

It does not involve necessary determination.

Now it is obvious that the relation of causality, understood in this second way, does not involve the necessary determination of the effect by the cause. History indeed proves it. We see ancient hylozoism, the first outcome of this conception of causality, explained the regular succession of causes and effects by a real deus ex machina: sometimes it was a Necessity external to things and hovering over them, sometimes an inner Reason acting by rules somewhat similar to those which govern our own conduct. Nor do the perceptions of Leibniz's monad necessitate one another; God has to regulate their order in advance. In fact, Leibniz's determinism does not spring from his conception of the monad, but from the fact that he builds up the universe with monads only. Having denied all mechanical influence of substances on one another, he had to explain how it happens that their states correspond. Hence a determinism which arises from the necessity of positing a pre-established harmony, and not at all from the dynamic conception of the relation of causality. But let us leave history aside. Consciousness itself testifies that the abstract idea of force is that of indeterminate effort, that of an effort which has not yet issued in an act and in which the act is still only at the stage of an idea. In other words, the dynamic conception of the causal relation ascribes to things a duration absolutely like our own, whatever may be the nature of this duration; to picture in this way the relation of cause to effect is to assume that the future is not more closely bound up with the present in the external world than it is in our own inner life.

Each of these contradictory interpretations of causality and duration by itself safeguards freedom; taken together they destroy it.

It follows from this twofold analysis that the principle of causality involves two contradictory conceptions of duration, two mutually exclusive ways of prefiguring the future in the present. Sometimes all phenomena, physical or psychical, are pictured as enduring in the same way, and therefore in the way that we do: in this case the future will exist in the present only as an idea, and the passing from the present to the future will take the form of an effort which does not always lead to the realization of the idea conceived. Sometimes, on the other hand, duration is regarded as the characteristic form of conscious states; in this case, things are no longer supposed to endure as we do, and a mathematical pre-existence of their future in their present is admitted. Now, each of these two hypotheses, when taken by itself, safeguards human freedom; for the first would lead to the result that even the phenomena of nature were contingent, and the second, by attributing the necessary determination of physical phenomena to the fact that things do not endure as we do, invites us to regard the self which is subject to duration as a free force. Therefore, every clear conception of causality, where we know our own meaning, leads to the idea of human freedom as a natural consequence. Unfortunately, the habit has grown up of taking the principle of causality in both senses at the same time, because the one is more flattering to our imagination and the other is more favourable to mathematical reasoning. Sometimes we think particularly of the regular succession of physical phenomena and of the kind of inner effort by which one becomes another; sometimes we fix our mind on the absolute regularity of these phenomena, and from the idea of regularity we pass by imperceptible steps to that of mathematical necessity, which excludes duration understood in the first way. And we do not see any harm in letting these two conceptions blend into one another, and in assigning greater importance to the one or the other according as we are more or less concerned with the interests of science. But to apply the principle of causality, in this ambiguous form, to the succession of conscious states, is uselessly and wantonly to run into inextricable difficulties. The idea of force, which really excludes that of necessary determination, has got into the habit, so to speak, of amalgamating with that of necessity, in consequence of the very use which we make of the principle of causality in nature. On the one hand, we know force only through the witness of consciousness, and consciousness does not assert, does not even understand, the absolute determination, now, of actions that are still to come: that is all that experience teaches us, and if we hold by experience we should say that we feel ourselves free, that we perceive force, rightly or wrongly, as a free spontaneity. But, on the other hand, this idea of force, carried over into nature, travelling there side by side with the idea of necessity, has got corrupted before it returns from the journey. It returns impregnated with the idea of necessity: and in the light of the rôle which we have made it play in the external world, we regard force as determining with strict necessity the effects which flow from it. Here again the mistake made by consciousness arises from the fact that it looks at the self, not directly, but by a kind of refraction through the forms which it has lent to external perception, and which the latter does not give back without having left its mark on them. A compromise, as it were, has been brought about between the idea of force and that of necessary determination. The wholly mechanical determination of two external phenomena by one another now assumes in our eyes the same form as the dynamic relation of our exertion of force to the act which springs from it: but, in return, this latter relation takes the form of a mathematical derivation, the human action being supposed to issue mechanically, and therefore necessarily, from the force which produces it. There is no doubt that this mingling of two different and almost opposite ideas offers advantages to common sense, since it enables us to picture in the same way, and denote by one and the same word, both the relation which exists between two moments of our life and that which binds together the successive moments of the external world. We have seen that, though our deepest conscious states exclude numerical multiplicity, yet we break them up into parts external to one another; that though the elements of concrete duration permeate one another, duration expressing itself in extensity exhibits moments as distinct as the bodies scattered in space. Is it surprising, then, that between the moments of our life, when it has been, so to speak, objectified, we set up a relation analogous to the objective relation of causality, and that an exchange, which again may be compared to the phenomenon of endosmosis, takes place between the dynamic idea of free effort and the mathematical concept of necessary determination?

Though united in popular thought, the ideas of free effort and necessary determination are kept apart by physical science.

But the sundering of these two ideas is an accomplished fact in the natural sciences. The physicist may speak of forces, and even picture their mode of action by analogy with an inner effort, but he will never introduce this hypothesis into a scientific explanation. Even those who, with Faraday, replace the extended atoms by dynamic points, will treat the centres of force and the lines of force mathematically, without troubling about force itself considered as an activity or an effort. It thus comes to be understood that the relation of external causality is purely mathematical, and has no resemblance to the relation between psychical force and the act which springs from it.

They should be kept apart too by psychology.

It is now time to add that the relation of inner causality is purely dynamic, and has no analogy with the relation of two external phenomena which condition one another. For as the latter are capable of recurring in a homogeneous space, their relation can be expressed in terms of a law, whereas deep-seated psychic states occur once in consciousness and will never occur again. A careful analysis of the psychological phenomenon led us to this conclusion in the beginning: the study of the notions of causality and duration, viewed in themselves, has merely confirmed it.

Freedom real but indefineable.

We can now formulate our conception of freedom. Freedom is the relation of the concrete self to the act which it performs. This relation is indefinable, just because we are free. For we can analyse a thing, but not a process; we can break up extensity, but not duration. Or, if we persist in analysing it, we unconsciously transform the process into a thing and duration into extensity. By the very fact of breaking up concrete time we set out its moments in homogeneous space; in place of the doing we put the already done; and, as we have begun by, so to speak, stereotyping the activity of the self, we see spontaneity settle down into inertia and freedom into necessity. Thus, any positive definition of freedom will ensure the victory of determinism.

Shall we define the free act by saying of this act, when it is once done, that it might have been left undone? But this assertion, as also its opposite, implies the idea of an absolute equivalence between concrete duration and its spatial symbol: and as soon as we admit this equivalence, we are led on, by the very development of the formula which we have just set forth, to the most rigid determinism.

Shall we define the free act as "that which could not be foreseen, even when all the conditions were known in advance?" But to conceive all the conditions as given, is, when dealing with concrete duration, to place oneself at the very moment at which the act is being performed. Or else it is admitted that the matter of psychic duration can be pictured symbolically in advance, which amounts, as we said, to treating time as a homogeneous medium, and to reasserting in new words the absolute equivalence of duration with its symbol. A closer study of this second definition of freedom will thus bring us once more to determinism.

Shall we finally define the free act by saying that it is not necessarily determined by its cause? But either these words lose their meaning or we understand by them that the same inner causes will not always call forth the same effects. We admit, then, that the psychic antecedents of a free act can be repeated, that freedom is displayed in a duration whose moments resemble one another, and that time is a homogeneous medium, like space. We shall thus be brought back to the idea of an equivalence between duration and its spatial symbol; and by pressing the definition of freedom which we have laid down, we shall once more get determinism out of it.

To sum up; every demand for explanation in regard to freedom comes back, without our suspecting it, to the following question: "Can time be adequately represented by space?" To which we answer: Yes, if you are dealing with time flown; No, if you speak of time flowing. Now, the free act takes place in time which is flowing and not in time which has already flown. Freedom is therefore a fact, and among the facts which we observe there is none clearer. All the difficulties of the problem, and the problem itself, arise from the desire to endow duration with the same attributes as extensity, to interpret a succession by a simultaneity, and to express the idea of freedom in a language into which it is obviously untranslatable.

CONCLUSION

Modern psychology holds hat we perceive things through forms borrowed from our own constitution.

To sum up the foregoing discussion, we shall put aside for the present Kant's terminology and also his doctrine, to which we shall return later, and we shall take the point of view of common sense. Modern psychology seems to us particularly concerned to prove that we perceive things through the medium of certain forms, borrowed from our own constitution. This tendency has become more and more marked since Kant: while the German philosopher drew a sharp line of separation between time and space, the extensive and the intensive, and, as we should say to-day, consciousness and external perception, the empirical school, carrying analysis still further, tries to reconstruct the extensive out of the intensive, space out of duration, and externality out of inner states. Physics, moreover, comes in to complete the work of psychology in this respect: it shows that, if we wish to forecast phenomena, we must make a clean sweep of the impression which they produce on consciousness and treat sensations as signs of reality, not as reality itself.

But are not the states of the self perceived through forms borrowed from the external world?

It seemed to us that there was good reason to set ourselves the opposite problem and to ask whether the most obvious states of the ego itself, which we believe that we grasp directly, are not mostly perceived through the medium of certain forms borrowed from the external world, which thus gives us back what we have lent it. A priori it seems fairly probable that this is what happens. For, assuming that the forms alluded to, into which we fit matter, come entirely from the mind, it seems difficult to apply them constantly to objects without the latter soon leaving a mark on them: by then using these forms to gain a knowledge of our own person we run the risk of mistaking for the colouring of the self the reflection of the frame in which we place it, i.e. the external world. But one can go further still and assert that forms applicable to things cannot be entirely our own work, that they must result from a compromise between matter and mind, that if we give much to matter we probably receive something from it, and that thus, when we try to grasp ourselves after an excursion into the external world, we no longer have our hands free.

To understand the intensity, duration and voluntary determination of psychic states, we must eliminate the idea of space.

Now just as, in order to ascertain the real relations of physical phenomena to one another, we abstract whatever obviously clashes with them in our way of perceiving and thinking, so, in order to view the self in its original purity, psychology ought to eliminate or correct certain forms which bear the obvious mark of the external world. What are these forms? When isolated from one another and regarded as so many distinct units, psychic states seem to be more or less intense. Next, looked at in their multiplicity, they unfold in time and constitute duration. Finally, in their relations to one another, and in so far as a certain unity is preserved throughout their multiplicity, they seem to determine one another. Intensity, duration, voluntary determination, these are the three ideas which had to be clarified by ridding them of all that they owe to the intrusion of the sensible world and, in a word, to the obsession of the idea of space.

Intensity is quality and not quantity or magnitude.

Examining the first of these ideas, we found that psychic phenomena were in themselves pure quality or qualitative multiplicity, and that, on the other hand, their cause situated in space was quantity. In so far as this quality becomes the sign of the quantity and we suspect the presence of the latter behind the former, we call it intensity. The intensity of a simple state, therefore, is not quantity but its qualitative sign. You will find that it arises from a compromise between pure quality, which is the state of consciousness, and pure quantity, which is necessarily space. Now you give up this compromise without the least scruple when you study external things, since you then leave aside the forces themselves, assuming that they exist, and consider only their measurable and extended effects. Why, then, do you keep to this hybrid concept when you analyse in its turn the state of consciousness? If magnitude, outside you, is never intensive, intensity, within you, is never magnitude. It is through having overlooked this that philosophers have been compelled to distinguish two kinds of quantity, the one extensive, the other intensive, without ever succeeding in explaining what they had in common or how the same words "increase" and "decrease" could be used for things so unlike. In the same way they are responsible for the exaggerations of psychophysics, for as soon as the power of increasing in magnitude is attributed to sensation in any other than a metaphorical sense, we are invited to find out by how much it increases. And, although consciousness does not measure intensive quantity, it does not follow that science may not succeed indirectly in doing so, if it be a magnitude. Hence, either a psychophysical formula is possible or the intensity of a simple psychic state is pure quality.

Our conscious states not a discreet multiplicity.

Turning then to the concept of multiplicity, we saw that to construct a number we must first have the intuition of a homogeneous medium, viz. space, in which terms distinct from one another could be set out in line, and, secondly, a process of permeation and organization by which these units are dynamically added together and form what we called a qualitative multiplicity. It is owing to this dynamic process that the units get added, but it is because of their presence in space that they remain distinct. Hence number or discrete multiplicity also results from a compromise. Now, when we consider material objects in themselves, we give up this compromise, since we regard them as impenetrable and divisible, i.e. endlessly distinct from one another. Therefore, we must give it up, too, when we study our own selves. It is through having failed to do so that associationism has made many mistakes, such as trying to reconstruct a psychic state by the addition of distinct states of consciousness, thus substituting the symbol of the ego for the ego itself.

These preliminary considerations enabled us to approach the principal object of this work, the analysis of the ideas of duration and voluntary determination.

Inner duration is a qualitative multiplicity.

What is duration within us? A qualitative multiplicity, with no likeness to number; an organic evolution which is yet not an increasing quantity; a pure heterogeneity within which there are no distinct qualities. In a word, the moments of inner duration are not external to one another.

In the external we find not duration but simultaneity.

What duration is there existing outside us? The present only, or, if we prefer the expression, simultaneity. No doubt external things change, but their moments do not succeed one another, if we retain the ordinary meaning of the word, except for a consciousness which keeps them in mind. We observe outside us at a given moment a whole system of simultaneous positions; of the simultaneities which have preceded them nothing remains. To put duration in space is really to contradict oneself and place succession within simultaneity. Hence we must not say that external things endure, but rather that there is in them some inexpressible reason in virtue of which we cannot examine them at successive moments of our own duration without observing that they have changed. But this change does not involve succession unless the word is taken in a new meaning: on this point we have noted the agreement of science and common sense.

Thus in consciousness we find states which succeed, without being distinguished from one another; and in space simultaneities which, without succeeding, are distinguished from one another, in the sense that one has ceased to exist when the other appears. Outside us, mutual externality without succession; within us, succession without mutual externality.

The idea of a measurable time arises from compromise between ideas of succession and externality.

Here again a compromise comes in. To the simultaneities, which constitute the external world, and, although distinct, succeed one another for our consciousness, we attribute succession in themselves. Hence the idea that things endure as we do ourselves and that time may be brought within space. But while our consciousness thus introduces succession into external things, inversely these things themselves externalize the successive moments of our inner duration in relation to one another. The simultaneities of physical phenomena, absolutely distinct in the sense that the one has ceased to be when the other takes place, cut up into portions, which are also distinct and external to one another, an inner life in which succession implies interpenetration, just as the pendulum of a clock cuts up into distinct fragments and spreads out, so to speak, lengthwise, the dynamic and undivided tension of the spring. Thus, by a real process of endosmosis we get the mixed idea of a measurable time, which is space in so far as it is homogeneity, and duration in so far as it is succession, that is to say, at bottom, the contradictory idea of succession in simultaneity.

As science eliminates duration from the outer, philosophy must eliminate space from the inner world.

Now, these two elements, extensity and duration, science tears asunder when it undertakes the close study of external things. For we have pointed out that science retains nothing of duration but simultaneity, and nothing of motion itself position of the moving body, i.e. immobility. A very sharp separation is here made and space gets the best of it.

Therefore the same separation will have to be made again, but this time to the advantage of duration, when inner phenomena are studied, —not inner phenomena once developed, to be sure, or after the discursive reason has separated them and set them out in a homogeneous medium in order to understand them, but inner phenomena in their developing, and in so far as they make up, by their interpenetration, the continuous evolution of a free person. Duration, thus restored to its original purity, will appear as a wholly qualitative multiplicity, an absolute heterogeneity of elements which pass over into one another.

The neglect to separate extensity and duration leads one party to deny freedom and the other to define it.

Now it is because they have neglected to make this necessary separation that one party has been led to deny freedom and the other to define it, and thereby, involuntarily, to deny it too. They ask in fact whether the act could or could not be foreseen, the whole of its conditions being given; and whether they assert it or deny it, they admit that this totality of conditions could be conceived as given in advance: which amounts, as we have shown, to treating duration as a homogeneous thing and intensities as magnitudes. They will either say that the act is determined by its conditions, without perceiving that they are playing on the double sense of the word causality, and that they are thus giving to duration at the same time two forms which are mutually exclusive. Or else they will appeal to the principle of the conservation of energy, without asking whether this principle is equally applicable to the moments of the external world, which are equivalent to one another, and to the moments of a living and conscious being, which acquire a richer and richer content. In whatever way, in a word, freedom is viewed, it cannot be denied except on condition of identifying time with space; it cannot be defined except on condition of demanding that space should adequately represent time; it cannot be argued about in one sense or the other except on condition of previously confusing succession and simultaneity. All determinism will thus be refuted by experience, but every attempt to define freedom will open the way to determinism.

This separation favourable to physical science, but against the interests of language and social life.

Inquiring then why this separation of duration and extensity, which science carries out so naturally in the external world, demands such an effort and rouses so much repugnance when it is a question of inner states, we were not long in perceiving the reason. The main object of science is to forecast and measure: now we cannot forecast physical phenomena except on condition that we assume that they do not endure as we do; and, on the other hand, the only thing we are able to measure is space. Hence the breach here comes about of itself between quality and quantity, between true duration and pure extensity. But when we turn to our conscious states, we have everything to gain by keeping up the illusion through which we make them share in the reciprocal externality of outer things, because this distinctness, and at the same time this solidification, enables us to give them fixed names in spite of their instability, and distinct ones in spite of their interpenetration. It enables us to objectify them, to throw them out into the current of social life.

Hence two different selves: (1) the fundamental self; (2) its spatial and social representation: only the former is free.

Hence there are finally two different selves, one of which is, as it were, the external projection of the other, its spatial and, so to speak, social representation. We reach the former by deep introspection, which leads us to grasp our inner states as living things, constantly becoming, as states not amenable to measure, which permeate one another and of which the succession in duration has nothing in common with juxtaposition in homogeneous space. But the moments at which we thus grasp ourselves are rare, and that is just why we are rarely free. The greater part of the time we live outside ourselves, hardly perceiving anything of ourselves but our own ghost, a colourless shadow which pure duration projects into homogeneous space. Hence our life unfolds in space rather than in time; we live for the external world rather than for ourselves; we speak rather than think; we "are acted" rather than act ourselves. To act freely is to recover possession of oneself, and to get back into pure duration.

Kant clung to freedom, but put the self which is free outside both space and time.

Kant's great mistake was to take time as a homogeneous medium. He did not notice that real duration is made up of moments inside one another, and that when it seems to assume the form of a homogeneous whole, it is because it gets expressed in space. Thus the very distinction which he makes between space and time amounts at bottom to confusing time with space, and the symbolical representation of the ego with the ego itself. He thought that consciousness was incapable of perceiving psychic states otherwise than by juxtaposition, forgetting that a medium in which these states are set side by side and distinguished from one another is of course space, and not duration. He was thereby led to believe that the same states can recur in the depths of consciousness, just as the same physical phenomena are repeated in space; this at least is what he implicitly admitted when he ascribed to the causal relation the same meaning and the same function in the inner as in the outer world. Thus freedom was made into an incomprehensible fact. And yet, owing to his unlimited though unconscious confidence in this inner perception whose scope he tried to restrict, his belief in freedom remained unshakable. He therefore raised it to the sphere of noumena; and as he had confused duration with space, he made this genuine free self, which is indeed outside space, into a self which is supposed to be outside duration too, and therefore out of the reach of our faculty of knowledge. But the truth is that we perceive this self whenever, by a strenuous effort of reflection, we turn our eyes from the shadow which follows us and retire into ourselves. Though we generally live and act outside our own person, in space rather than in duration, and though by this means we give a handle to the law of causality, which binds the same effects to the same causes, we can nevertheless always get back into pure duration, of which the moments are internal and heterogeneous to one another, and in which a cause cannot repeat its effect since it will never repeat itself.

Kant regarded both space and time as homogeneous.

In this very confusion of true duration with its symbol both the strength and the weakness of Kantianism reside. Kant imagines on the one side "things in themselves," and on the other a homogeneous Time and Space, through which the "things in themselves," are refracted: thus are supposed to arise on the one hand the phenomenal self—a self which consciousness perceives—and, on the other, external objects. Time and space on this view would not be any more in us than outside us; the very distinction of outside and inside would be the work of time and space. This doctrine has the advantage of providing our empirical thought with a solid foundation, and of guaranteeing that phenomena, as phenomena, are adequately knowable. Indeed, we might set up these phenomena as absolute and do without the incomprehensible "things in themselves," were it not that the Practical Reason, the revealer of duty, came in, like the Platonic reminiscence, to warn us that the "thing in itself" exists, invisible but present. The controlling factor in the whole of this theory is the very sharp distinction between the matter of consciousness and its form, between the homogeneous and the heterogeneous, and this vital distinction would probably never have been made unless time also had been regarded as a medium indifferent to what fills it.

But if time, as duration, were homogeneous, science could deal with it.

But if time, as immediate consciousness perceives it, were, like space, a homogeneous medium, science would be able to deal with it, as it can with space. Now we have tried to prove that duration, as duration, and motion, as motion, elude the grasp of mathematics: of time everything slips through its fingers but simultaneity, and of movement everything but immobility. This is what the Kantians and even their opponents do not seem to have perceived: in this so-called phenomenal world, which, we are told, is a world cut out for scientific knowledge, all the relations which cannot be translated into simultaneity, i.e. into space, are scientifically unknowable.

And freedom would be incomprehensible. Kant's solution.

In the second place, in a duration assumed to be homogeneous, the same states could occur over again, causality would imply necessary determination, and all freedom would become incomprehensible. Such, indeed, is the result to which the Critique of Pure Reason leads. But instead of concluding from this that real duration is heterogeneous, which, by clearing up the second difficulty, would have called his attention to the first, Kant preferred to put freedom outside time and to raise an impassable barrier between the world of phenomena, which he hands over root and branch to our understanding, and the world of things in themselves, which he forbids us to enter.

How corrected by taking real duration into account.

But perhaps this distinction is too sharply drawn and perhaps the barrier is easier to cross than he supposed. For if perchance the moments of real duration, perceived by an attentive consciousness, permeated one another instead of lying side by side, and if these moments formed in relation to one another a heterogeneity within which the idea of necessary determination lost every shred of meaning, then the self grasped by consciousness would be a free cause, we should have absolute knowledge of ourselves, and, on the other hand, just because this absolute constantly commingles with phenomena and, while filling itself with them, permeates them, these phenomena themselves would not be as amenable as is claimed to mathematical reasoning,

With Kant, we assume a homogeneous space, the intuition of which is peculiar to man and prepares the way for social life.

So we have assumed the existence of a homogeneous Space and, with Kant, distinguished this space from the matter which fills it. With him we have admitted that homogeneous space is a "form of our sensibility": and we understand by this simply that other minds, e.g. those of animals, social life, although they perceive objects, do not distinguish them so clearly either from one another or from themselves. This intuition of a homogeneous medium, an intuition peculiar to man, enables us to externalize our concepts in relation to one another, reveals to us the objectivity of things, and thus, in two ways, on the one hand by getting everything ready for language, and on the other by showing us an external world, quite distinct from ourselves, in the perception of which all minds have a common share, foreshadows and prepares the way for social life.

But if concrete duration is heterogeneous, the relation of psychic state to act is unique and the act is rightly judged free.

Over against this homogeneous space we have put the self as perceived by an attentive consciousness, a living self, whose states, at once undistinguished and unstable, cannot be separated without changing their nature, and cannot receive a fixed form or be expressed in words without becoming public property. How could this self, which distinguishes external objects so sharply and represents them so easily by means of symbols, withstand the temptation to introduce the same distinctions into its own life and to replace the interpenetration of its psychic states, their wholly qualitative multiplicity, by a numerical plurality of terms which are distinguished from one another, set side by side, and expressed by means of words? In place of a heterogeneous duration whose moments permeate one another, we thus get a homogeneous time whose moments are strung on a spatial line. In place of an inner life whose successive phases, each unique of its kind, cannot be expressed in the fixed terms of language, we get a self which can be artificially reconstructed, and simple psychic states which can be added to and taken from one another just like the letters of the alphabet in forming words. Now, this must not be thought to be a mode of symbolical representation only, for immediate intuition and discursive thought are one in concrete reality, and the very mechanism by which we only meant at first to explain our conduct will end by also controlling it. Our psychic states, separating then from each other, will get solidified; between our ideas, thus crystallized, and our external movements we shall witness permanent associations being formed; and little by little, as our consciousness thus imitates the process by which nervous matter procures reflex actions, automatism will cover over freedom.[10] It is just at this point that the associationists and the determinists come in on the one side, and the Kantians on the other. As they look at only the commonest aspect of our conscious life, they perceive clearly marked states, which can recur in time like physical phenomena, and to which the law of causal determination applies, if we wish, in the same sense as it does to nature. As, on the other hand, the medium in which these psychic states are set side by side exhibits parts external to one another, in which the same facts seem capable of being repeated, they do not hesitate to make time a homogeneous medium and treat it as space. Henceforth all difference between duration and extensity, succession and simultaneity, is abolished: the only thing left is to turn freedom out of doors, or, if you cannot entirely throw off your traditional respect for it, to escort it with all due ceremony up to the supratemporal domain of "things in themselves," whose mysterious threshold your consciousness cannot cross. But, in our view, there is a third course which might be taken, namely, to carry ourselves back in thought to those moments of our life when we made some serious decision, moments unique of their kind, which will never be repeated —any more than the past phases in the history of a nation will ever come back again. We should see that if these past states cannot be adequately expressed in words or artificially reconstructed by a juxtaposition of simpler states, it is because in their dynamic unity and wholly qualitative multiplicity they are phases of our real and concrete duration, a heterogeneous duration and a living one. We should see that, if our action was pronounced by us to be free, it is because the relation of this action to the state from which it issued could not be expressed by a law, this psychic state being unique of its kind and unable ever to occur again. We should see, finally, that the very idea of necessary determination here loses every shred of meaning, that there cannot be any question either of foreseeing the act before it is performed or of reasoning about the possibility of the contrary action once the deed is done, for to have all the conditions given is, in concrete duration, to place oneself at the very moment of the act and not to foresee it. But we should also understand the illusion which makes the one party think that they are compelled to deny freedom, and the others that they must define it. It is because the transition is made by imperceptible steps from concrete duration, whose elements permeate one another, to symbolical duration, whose moments are set side by side, and consequently from free activity to conscious automatism. It is because, although we are free whenever we are willing to get back into ourselves, it seldom happens that we are willing. It is because, finally, even in the cases where the action is freely performed, we cannot reason about it without setting out its conditions externally to one another, therefore in space and no longer in pure duration. The problem of freedom has thus sprung from a misunderstanding: it has been to the moderns what the paradoxes of the Eleatics were to the ancients, and, like these paradoxes, it has its origin in the illusion through which we confuse succession and simultaneity, duration and extensity, quality and quantity.

INDEX

Absolute, reality of space, 91; freedom not, 166; law of consciousness, 207; Spinoza and, 208; knowledge of ourselves, 235. Abstraction, implies homogeneous medium, 97; breaks up elements of idea, 134; and diagram of process of reaching a decision, 177 f.; and Lord Kelvin's theory of matter, 206. Acceleration, hypothetical, of motions of universe, 116 f., 193 ff. Achilles, and tortoise, 73 f. Act, not divisible like object, 112; free acts, 165 ff.; "possible acts," 174 ff. Act, of mind: all unity due to, 80 f.; neglected in empirical theory of space, 93 f.; nature of, 95. Addition, of sensation-differences, 64, 65; process of, 80, 123, 226; implies multiplicity of parts, 85. Advice, relation of, to freedom, 169. Aeolus, cave of, 20. Aesthetic, Kant's Transcendental, 92, 93· Aesthetic feelings, 11 ff.; suggested, not caused, 17; stages in, 17. Alceste, indignation of, 167. Algebra, deals with results not processes, 119. Analysis, already visible in mental image, 84; distorts feelings, 132 f.; of a thing, not of a process, 219. Anger, psychic element in, 29; and organic disturbance, 30. Animals, ability to find their way through space, 96; space not so homogeneous for, 97; perceive duration as quality, 127; do not picture distinct external world, 138, 236. Antecedents, same, and same consequents, 199, 208. Architecture, compared with rhythm, 15. Aristotle, distinguishes potential and actual, 121. Arithmetic, splits up units, 84. Art, and beauty, 14; object of, 14; and hypnotism, 14; the plastic arts, 15; suggesting, not expressing feelings, 16; merit of work of, 17; yielding only sensations, 17; aim and method of artist, 18. Artificial, reconstruction of concrete phenomenon, 163. Aspect, twofold, of terms in a series, 124, 226; of the self, 128 ff.; of conscious states, 129 ff.; 137 ff. Association, by contiguity, 136, 164; self cannot be constituted by, 139, 165, 226; associationist determinism, 148, 155, 159; of ideas in interrupted conversation, 156; illustration from hypnotism, 157; illustration from deliberation, 158; involves defective conception of self, 159 ff., 165, 226; of end and movement, 160 f.; associations of smell, 161; its mistakes, 161 ff.; fits simple sensations, 164; cannot explain deeper states of self, 164; every-day acts obey laws of, 167 ff., 238. Astronomy, measurement of time in, 107; prediction of celestial phenomena, 117, 192 ff., 198. Attention, and muscular tension, 27; Fechner on, 27; Ribot on, 27; and psychic tension, 28; and formation of number, 82, 84. Bain, on nervous energy, 21; on theory of space, 93; on conflict of motives, 159. Beauty, feeling of, 14 ff.; in nature and art, 14 ff. Beliefs, adopted without reason, 135; compared to cell in organism, 135; some not properly assimilated, 136. Blix, experiments on temperature sense, 46. Body, movements of, as suggesting psychic state, 18; inclination of, in comparing pleasures, 38. Causality, law of, 199, 201; as regular succession, 202 f.; common sense and meaning of, 203; as prefiguring of future phenomenon in present conditions, 204 ff.; not a necessary principle, 208; Spinoza on, 208; identity and, 209, 210; as necessary determination of phenomena means human freedom, 210; and second type of prefiguring, 211 f.; this leads to Leibniz, 213, this does not involve determinism, 214; involves two conceptions of duration, 215; confusion of these two senses, 216; relation of external, as mathematical, 219; relation of inner, as dynamic, 219; Kant ascribed same meaning to, in inner and outer world, 232. Cause, external, and intensity, 4 f., 20, 42 ff., 72; introduced into effect, 42, 47, 54, 68; external, and separation of sensations, 109, 125; series of associations sometimes effect rather than, 156 ff.; in inner states no recurrence of same, 154, 199 f., 233; assertion that effect bound up with, 201; analysis of concept of, 201; self as free, 235. Cell, in organism, beliefs compared to, 135. Change, but not duration, attributed to external things, 227. Character, freedom and, 172 f.; and prediction of future actions, 184. Clocks, measurement of time by, 108 f.; perception of strokes of without expressly counting, 127. Co-existence, number and relations of, 75 n.; can space result from relations of, 94; of past and present only in consciousness, 112. Cold, perception of, 46. Colour, changes of hue and invariable colours, 51 white, grey and black, 53 f.; degrees of saturation, 54; intensity of, 54; colours of spectrum, 51, 54, 57; changes in sensation of, 57; can there be equidistant tints, 58. Compromise, see also Endosmosis: between idea of free force and necessity, 217; forms of perception result of, 223; intensity as compromise between quality and quantity, 225; number results from a, 226; idea of measurable time results from a, 228. Consciousness, compared to invisible musician, 147; as epiphenomenon, 152; Kant separates external perception and, 222; succession without distinction in, 227; matter and form of, 234. Conservation, of energy, see Energy; of motion, 151; of vis viva, 151; conservative systems not the only ones possible, 152. Continuity, of number when formed, 82 f. Contradiction, law of non-, 89, 150, 207, reconciliation of apparent at deeper level, 136. Counting, units mast be identical, 76; also distinct, 77; flock of sheep, 76 f.; battalion of soldiers, 76; implies intuition of space, 77 ff.; material objects, 85; conscious states, 86, 89; strokes of a bell, 86; moments of duration, 104; oscillations of a pendulum, 104 f.; two sides of the process of, 123; strokes of a clock by qualitative effect, 127. Crisis, freedom shown at, 170, 239. Critique of Pure Reason, result of, 235. Critique philosophique, article in, 75 n. Dancer, and feeling of grace, 12. Darwin, on rage, 29; on violent emotions and reflex movements, 30; on pain and reactions, 37. Definition, of equality of sensation-differences, 64; of addition of sensation-differences, 64, 65; of number, 75; of subjective and objective, 83; of space, 95, 98; none of right and left, 97; of simultaneity, 110; of equal intervals of time, 115; of velocity, 117 f.; of inertia of matter, 142; of freedom, leads to determinism, 220 f., 230, 239. Delbœuf, his measurement of luminous sensation, 52, 56 ff., 67 ff.; his underlying postulate, 60. Deliberation, process of, 158, 171; wrongly pictured as oscillation in space, 183. Depth, of aesthetic feeling, 17 f.; of emotional states, 31. Descartes, and conservation of motion, 151; his mischievous genius, 193; his view of matter, 207; Cartesian physics, 207; and regularity of physical world, 208. Desire, progress of a, 8; conceived as a distinct thing, 159. Determinism, two kinds of, 142; physical, 143 ff.; psychological, 155 ff.; rests on misconception of duration, 143, 173; and molecular theory of matter, 143 f., 147; of psychic states does not follow from that of cerebral states, 146 f.; associationist, 148, 155, 159; and hypnotism, 157; self-determination, 165, 172; its mechanical conception of self, 171; could act have been different? 173, 201, 220, 239; can act be predicted? 173, 183 ft., 201, 220, 239; and "possible acts," 174; and character, 184 ff., 172; and astronomical prediction, 192 ff.; and law of causality, 199 ff.; misunderstanding of causality underlies all, 201 ff.; of phenomena as involving human freedom, 210, 215 ff.; not involved in second type of prefiguring, 211 f., 215 f.; Leibniz's, 214; as compromis between idea of free effort and necessity, 217; attempt to define freedom leads to, 220, 230, 239; all, refuted by experience, 230; meaningless if duration heterogeneous, 235, 239. Diagrams, geometrical, 176, 191. Differentials, expressing Fechner's Law, 62, 65; dealing with motion, 119. Dimension, time as fourth, 109. Discontinuity, of number, 82 f. Disgust, Richet's description of, 36. Distinction, two meanings of, 75 n., 121; succession without, 101; of psychic states, leads to mechanical conception of self, 171; Kant's, between matter and form of consciousness, 234. Donaldson, experiments on temperature sense, 46. Dreams, freshness in, 8; charm in, 10; superficial psychic states removed in, 126; overlying images in, 136. Duration, moments counted by means of points in space, 78 f., 87; differs from homogeneous time in having nothing to do with space, 91; empirical attempts to build up space from, 99 f., 222; conception of pure, 100, 104 ff., 229; expressed in terms of space, 101, 103, 232; order of succession in, 101 f.; any homogeneity in, implies space, 104, 115; as interpenetration of conscious states, 104, 107, 108, 110, 128, 218, 226, 232 ff., 235; pure, is wholly qualitative, 106, 126 f., 229; not measurable, 107 ff.; not measured by clocks, 108 f.; as heterogeneous and with no relation to number, 109, 110, 120, 226, 229, 235, 239; how mistaken idea of homogeneity arises, 109; and motion, 110, 114, 124; eliminated from time by science, 115, 116, 228; and simultaneity, 115 f.; and astronomical prediction, 117, 192 ff.; cannot be represented by mathematical formulae, 119; as mental synthesis, 120; none in space, 120, 227; as quality, 127, 193, 197, 226; felt as quality in sleep, 126; perceived as quality by animals, 127; homogeneous, as symbolical representation derived from space, 128, 219, 239, 240; its two forms, 128; constituted by deep-seated conscious states, 137, 224; determinism rests on inaccurate conception of, 143, 153, 173, 209, 215 f., 220, 235, 239; acts like a cause in realm of life, 153; heterogeneity of, precludes return to former state, 154, 200, 219, 232, 233, 239; real, and prediction, 183 ff.; of conscious states unalterable, 196 f.; difference between past and future, 198; applicable to persons, not to external things, 200, 209 f., 215, 227; as contained in single moment, 208; real, as leading to free will, 210, 215 f.; attributed to things, 215, 228; two conceptions of, in causality, 215; separated from extensity by science, 228 f., 230; must similarly be separated by philosophy, 229 f.; Kant put self outside, 233; possible to get back into pure, 233; Kant confused with space, 233; science cannot deal with, 234; if homogeneous, no freedom, 235; origin of feeling of, 238 n.; no moral crisis without, 238 n.; key to problem of free will, 238 n. Dynamism, as system of nature, 140; and relation between facts and laws, 140 f.; its view of simplicity, 141; inner, 172. Eclipse, prediction of, 117, 194· Education, not properly assimilated, 166; may curtail freedom, 167. Effort, intensity of, 7, 24, 25, 26; muscular, 20 ff.; apparently quantitative, 21; feeling of, 21 ff., 211; experimental investigation of, 22 ff.; superficial, 26; in estimating intensity and pitch of sound, 45 f.; in second type of prefiguring, 211; force and, 214; ideas of free, and necessity to be kept apart, 217, 218. Eleatics, their paradoxes, 74, 240; arise from confusion between motion and space, 112 ff.; Achilles and tortoise, 113 f. Elevation, of aesthetic feeling, 17. Emotions, violent, intensity of, 28 ff. Empiricist, theory of space, 93 f.; derivation of extensive from inextensive, 94, 222. Endosmosis, see also Compromise:—between succession and externality, 109, 228; between mobility and space, 112; between free effort and necessary determination, 218. Energy, kinetic and potential, 152; may be new kind of, 152. Energy, conservation of: incompatible with freedom, 142, 144; and determination of physiological and nervous phenomena, 145; does not involve determinism of conscious states, 146 f.; is it universal? 150, 154; in the natural sciences, 150; implies return of system to former state, 152; conscious force or free will may escape law of, 154; illegitimate extension of, 155, 230. English philosophers, on extensity and succession, 99. Epiphenomenon, consciousness as, 152. Equations, expressing Fechner's Law, 62; express something finished, 19; transformability of, 204. Évellin, on space, time and motion, 114. Experiments, and experimental observations: Wundt on paralytic, 21; Vulpian on hemiplegia, 22; Ferner on feeling of effort, 22 f.; James on feeling of effort, 23; clenching the fist, 24; compressing the lips, 25; lifting a weight, 25, 48 f.; Féré on muscular force, 41; pin pricks, 42; on temperature sense, 46; Helmholtz on colour and intensity, 51; photometric, 52 ff.; Lehmann and Neiglick's, 52; Delbœuf's on measurement of luminous sensation, 52 ff., 56 ff. Explanation, confused with fact, 163, 181. Extensity, implies relation of container to contained, 3; no point of contact between extended and unextended, 70; as aspect of physical qualities, 92; Kant on, 92, 148; attempted derivation of, from the unextended, 93 f., 99 f., 222; homogeneous, as result of stripping matter of concrete qualities, 205; Descartes' view of matter as homogeneous, 207; hylozoism and qualities of matter, 213; confusion with duration raises problem of freedom, 221, 240; separated from duration by science, 228, 230. Externality, of things in space, 99; exists outside the ego, 108, 227; endosmosis between succession and, 109, 228; of things, helps to cut up psychic life, 109, 125 f., 130, 228; animals have not same tendency to picture, 138; empirical school attempts to build up, from inner states, 222; external things subject to change but not duration, 227; external world distinct from ourselves, 236. Fact, relation between law and, 140 f.; explanation confused with, 163, 181. Faraday, and centres of force, 218. Fear, Spencer on, 30; conceived as distinct state, 159. Fechner, on attention and tension 27; his psychophysics, 56, 60 ff.; his formulae, 61, 62; his law, 61; his logarithmic law, 62 n.; method of minimum differences, 64, 69. Feeling, intensity of, 7, 185; deep-seated, 7 ff.; aesthetic, 11 ff.; of grace, 11 f.; of beauty, 14 f.; richness of aesthetic, 17 f.; moral, 18 f.; and physical symptoms, 20 ff.; of effort, 21 ff., 211; distorted by analysis, 132 f.; something living and developing, 133; leads to resolution, 133, 171; whole soul reflected in each, 165; change in duration of, means change in nature, 197 f. Féré, C, on sensation and muscular force, 41. Ferrier, on feeling of effort, 16. Figure, see Diagram. Flavour, changing, solidified by language, 131. Force, alleged psychic, 20 f., 25; muscular, 21; nervous, 21; sensation of, 21; conscious states not forces, 165, 170; idea of, as indeterminate effort, 214; self as a free, 216; idea of, and necessity, 216, 217; as free spontaneity, 217; ideas of free force and necessity separated by science, 218. "Form of Sensibility," Kant's theory of, 94; homogeneous space as, 236. Forms, borrowed from external world in perception of self, 154, 167, 183, 217, 223; borrowed from self in perception of things, 222; of perception, result of compromise, 223; elimination of those borrowed from external world, 224; Kant's distinction between matter and, 93, 234. Formulae, Weber's, 61; Fechner's, 62; dealing with velocity, 118. Fouillée, on freedom as a motive, 160. Fourth dimension, time as, 109. Freedom, Free Will, see also Determinism: origin of problem, 74, 139, 221, 240; cause of conflict between mechanism and dynamism, 140; twofold objection to, 142; and molecular theory of matter, 143 f.; and conservation of energy, 145 ff.; strictly limited if principle of conservation universal, 149 f.; as conscious force, exempt from law of conservation, 154; defenders of, mistakenly agree that conscious states are distinct things, 159; Fouillée on, 160; as self-expression, 165, 172; not absolute, but admits of degrees, 166; many live without realizing, 166; may be curtailed by education, 167; free acts rare, 167, 231, 240; free decision springs from whole or fundamental self, 167, 172, 231, 240; covered over by automatism, 168, 231, 237; sometimes resigned through indolence, 169; shown in times of crisis, 170, 239; and character, 172; to be sought in characteristic of the decision or act, 173, 182 f.; Mill on, 174; and "possible acts," 174; free action compared to over-ripe fruit, 176; distinction of successive phases in, leads to determinism, 177 ff.; the self infallible in affirming its, 183; not disproved by causality as regular succession, 202 f.; safe-guarded by different conceptions of causality taken by themselves, 215 f.; self as free cause, 216, 235; real but indefinable, 219 ff., 230, 239 f.; why denied and defined, 229; Kant on, 232, 233, 235, 238; incomprehensible if duration homogeneous, 235; key to problem of, 238 n.; follows from uniqueness of relation of psychic state to act, 239. Fusion, see Interpenetration. Future, see Prediction. Ghost, time as ghost of space, 99. Goldscheider, experiments on temperature sense, 46. Grace, feeling of, 11 f. Hamilton, Mill on, quoted, 159, 174· Harmony, Leibniz on pre-established, 147, 213, 214. Heat, sensation of, 46 f.; mechanical theory of, 151. Helmholtz, on effort of volition, 23; on colour and intensity, 51. Hemiplegia, Vulpian on, 22. Heterogeneity, qualitative, interpreted as extensive homogeneity, 95; of pure duration, 109, 110, 120, 128, 226, 229, 235, 239; of deep-seated psychic states, 200; homogeneous universe assumed behind, 205; Kant's distinction between homogeneity and, 234. Homogeneity, of time, 90, 98, 107, 124, 234, 237; of space, 95 f., 98, 120, 236; is all homogeneity space? 98; supposed two forms of, 98; none in duration, 104, 115; none in motion, 110, 115; how introduced into duration, 124 f., 128; connection between, and general ideas, 163; assumed behind heterogeneity, 205; Kant's distinction between heterogeneity and, 234. Hope, why pleasurable, 9 f. Hylozoism, ancient, 213, 214. Hypnotism, and art, 14; and aesthetic feeling, 17; illustrating association of ideas, 157; non-incorporation of idea received during, 166. Ideas, analysis of, 134; interpenetration of, 135; unreasoning adherence to, 135; some not incorporated, 135; associationism fits superficial, 136; reconciliation of, at deeper level, 136; association of, in interrupted conversation, 156; general, and perception of homogeneous medium, 163. Identity, principle of, 207; attempt to replace causality by, 209; causality does not coincide with, 210. Illusion, as to psychic states possessing magnitude, 21; reflective consciousness has two fundamental, 190; of attributing mutual externality to conscious states, 231; leading to difficulties about free will, 240. Immobility, movement cannot be made from, 115; all that science retains of motion is, 119, 229, 234. Impenetrability, of matter, 88 f. Inertia, of organism, and pleasure, 38; vis inertiae,38; dynamism derives, from voluntary activity, 140; idea of spontaneity simpler than, 141; spontaneity settling down into, 220. Instinct, perception of duration in sleep compared to, 127; of the intellect, 135. Intensity, of psychic states, 1 ff., 224 f.; of sensations, 1 ff., 7, 20, 32, 40, 42, 47, 172 f.; alleged intensive magnitude, 2, 3 f., 71 f., 106, 225; no point of contact with extensive, 3, 70; estimated by external causes, 4 f., 20, 32 f., 42, 72; estimated by atomic movements, 6; different kinds of, 7; of deep-seated psychic states, 8, 26; of a growing desire, 8 f.; of joy, 10; of sorrow, 11; of aesthetic feelings, 11 ff., 17 f., of moral feelings, pity, 18 f.; of feeling of effort, 24 f.; of superficial effort, 26; of intermediate states, 27; of violent emotions, 28 f., 31; as multiplicity of simple states, 31, 73; of affective sensations, 32 f., 34 f., 47, 73 and organic disturbance, 32; of pain, 35 ff.; of disgust, 36; of representative sensations, 39 ff., 72; as quality, 42, 90, 190, 224; of sensation of sound, 43 f.; of heat and cold, 46 f.; of sensation of weight, 48; of sensation of light, 50 ff.; of a colour, 54; two factors contributing to, 73; as qualitative sign of quantity, 90, 224; of deep-seated feeling, nothing but the feeling, 185; how others made to realize, 185 f.; as compromise between quality and quantity, 225. Interpenetration, multiplicity of, 75, 162; of conscious states, 99, 100 f., 132 f., 163, 164, 231, 237; in pure duration, 104, 107, 108, 110, 128, 218, 235; of states of deep-seated self, 125, 137, 164; of strong feelings, 132 f.; of ideas, 135; of apparently contradictory ideas at deeper level, 136; in process of addition, 226; replaced by plurality, 237. Introspection, as leading to fundamental self, 231. Intuition, of space necessary to idea of number, 77 ff., 84, 225; of homogeneous medium, perhaps peculiar to man, 95 f., 236; of motion and duration, 114; of homogeneous space as step towards social life, 138, 163, 236; immediate, and discursive thought, 237. James, W. on feeling of effort, 22, 23, 24; on rage, 29. Joy, feeling of, 10. Juxtaposition, see also Interpenetration: inapplicable to inner states, 8 f.; multiplicity of, 75 n., 162; implies intuition of space, 77 f.; number as a, 85, 89; of conscious states, 101, 232; in homogeneous time, 121; of lifeless states, replaces a feeling, 133. Kant, theory of space, 92 f.; Transcendental Aesthetic, 92, 93; distinguished matter and form of representation, 93; "form of sensibility," 94, 236; separated time and space, 222, 232; mistake about time, 232; gave causality same meaning in inner and outer world, 232; clung to freedom but made it noumenal, 232, 238; put free self outside space and time, 233, 235; on "things in themselves," 233 f.; made time and space homogeneous, 233; and the Practical Reason, 234; distinguished matter and form of consciousness, 234; result of Critique of Pure Reason, 235; raised barrier between phenomena and things in themselves, 235; distinguished space from matter, 236. Kelvin, Lord, his theory of matter, 206. Lange, on materialism and determinism, 144. Language, unequal to psychological analysis, 9, 13, 160, 196, 237; foreign, sounds louder, 41; dominates thought, 70, 231; perhaps implies intuition of space, 97, 163, 236; uses terms borrowed from space, 122; favours separation of states of self, 128, 137, 139, 167, 231; solidifying influence of, on impressions, 129 f.; gives fixed form to fleeting sensations, 131 f.; description distorts the feelings, 132 ff.; only ideas which least belong to us can be expressed by, 136, 164; and social life, 137, 167, 231, 236; same impulse to picture externality as to speak, 138; second self formed, whose states expressed by, 138; illustration of inadequacy of, 160 f.; general ideas and intuition of space, 163; fixes only impersonal aspect of emotions, 164; psychology misled by, 165; how determinism aided by, 171; why same feeling, when repeated, called by same name, 200; favoured by avoiding separation of duration and extensity, 230 f. La Rochefoucauld, on sympathy, 19. Law, Weber's, 60; Fechner's, 62; Fechner's logarithmic, 62 w.; of non-contradiction, 89, 150, 207; of Nature, mechanism and dynamism on, 140 f.; relation between facts and, 140 f.; "same antecedents, same consequents," 199, 208; of causality, 199 ff.; physical phenomena obey, 202, 219; principle of identity as absolute, 207; relation of psychic state to act cannot be expressed by, 239. Lehmann, his photometric experiments, 52, Leibniz, on pre-established harmony, 147, 213, 214; and conservation of vis viva,151; on qualities of matter, 213; on matter as monad, 213, 214; conception of causality as leading to, 213; and determinism, 214. Light, sensation of, 50 ff. Line, succession symbolized as a, 103; motion not a, 120; time not a, 181. "Local signs," 49, 95; Lotze on, 93. Lotze, theory of local signs, 93. Magnitude, quantitative differences applicable to, 2 ff.; alleged intensive, 2, 3 f., 71 f., 106, 225; two species of, 3 f.; of growing desire, 9; and muscular effort, 20 f.; of sensations, 31 ff., 72; intensity of pain as a, 37; pleasure as a, 38; of representative sensations, 47; interval between colours as, 57 f.; interval between sensations as, 66, 68 f.; intensity not a, 225. Mathematics, represents results, not processes, 119, 234; exemplifies one type of prefiguring, 204 f. Matter, impenetrability of, 88; molecular theory of, and determinism, 143 f., 209; atomic theory of, still hypothetical, 145; has no apparent duration, 153; stripped of concrete qualities, 205; shape as quality of, 205; Lord Kelvin's vortex theory of, 206; Descartes' view of, 207; hylozoism and qualities of, 213; Leibniz and qualities of, 213; distinguished from form, 223, 234; distinguished from space, 236. Mean gradations, method of, 56, 59, 67, 69. Mechanics, treatment of time and duration in, 115; and notion of velocity, 117; deals with equations, 119. Mechanism, as system of nature, 140; and relation between facts and laws, 140 f.; its view of simplicity, 141; its influence on determinism, 148, 209; makes consciousness an epiphenomenon, 152; and Lord Kelvin's theory of matter, 207; Spinozistic, 209; and coincidence of causality with identity, 210; meant to explain conduct, will control it, 237. Metaphor, see Symbolical Representation. Method, of mean gradations, 56, 59, 67, 69; of minimum differences, 64f., 69. Mill, on Hamilton, 159 n., 174 n.; on distinct states of self, 159; on free will, 174. Mind, act of, see Act. Mind, articles in, quoted, 29 n., 46 n. Minimum differences, method of, 64 f., 69. Mobility, and motion, in f.; eliminated by science, 115, 228. Molière, Le Misanthrope quoted, 167. Monad, Leibniz on matter as, 213, 214. Motion, see also Movement: analysis of concept of, 110 f.; real only for conscious spectator, 111; as mental synthesis, in, 120; mobility and, 111; of shooting star, 111; confused with space in Eleatic paradox, 113 f.; intuition of, 114; not derivable from immobilizes, 115; no homogeneous element in, 115; science eliminates mobility from, 115, 228, 234; hypothetical acceleration of cosmic, 116 f., 193 ff.; cannot be represented by mathematical formulae, 119 f., 234; helps to form idea of homogeneous duration, 124; Descartes and conservation of, 151; and Lord Kelvin's theory of matter, 206. Motives, actions explained by, 148; and process of deliberation, 158; act not determined by, 158; Bain on conflict of, 159; Fouillée on freedom as a, 160; choice without, shown at crisis, 170. Movement, see also Motion: atomic, and intensity, 6; molecular, and sensation, 33, 34; automatic and free, 33, 35; in estimating sensation of weight, 49 f.; measurement of velocity of, 107, 117. Müller, Johann, nativistic theory of space, 93. Multiplicity, inner, 73; of conscious states, 75 ff., 90 f.; of juxtaposition, 75 n., 162; of interpenetration, 75 n., 162; implied in number, 76, 80 f.; implied in addition, 85; two kinds of 85 f., 91, 121, 128, 129; discrete, 90, 91, 120 f., 226; of number and of conscious states, 91, 121; continuous or qualitative, 105, 121, 128, 224, 226, 229, 239; determinism rests on inaccurate conception of, 143, 173; associationism confuses the two kinds of, 162 f.; of psychic states as constituting duration, 224; duration as qualitative, 226, 229. Music, and suggestion, 15, 44; duration and musical rhythm, 100; increase of stimulus compared to musical phrase, 106; organization of sensations compared to melodic phrase, 111; strokes of clock compared to musical phrase, 127; consciousness compared to invisible musician, 147. Nativist theory of space, 93. Nature beauty in, 14; compared with art, 16; profoundly utilitarian, 33; view taken by mechanism and dynamism, 140 f.; concrete phenomena of, abolished, 207; view of, as whimsical, 212. Necessity, see also Determinism: mechanism cannot escape, 140; as deus ex machina in ancient hylozoism, 214; and idea of force, 216 ff. Neiglick, his photometric experiments, 52 Noël, G., article on number and space, 75 n. Notes, why classified as higher and lower, 45 f. Noumenon, freedom as, 232. Novelist, how effects produced, 133, 164, 185. Number, natural series, 2, 80; definition of, 75; article on space and, 75 n.; units of, identical, 76; units of, distinct, 77, 226; implies intuition of space, 77 ff., 83 f., 225; both unit and synthesis of units, 80 f.; discontinuity of, 82; process of forming a, 82 f.; why divisible at will, 83; subjective and objective in, 84; thought of as a juxtaposition, 85; inapplicable to multiplicity of conscious states, 87; and impenetrability of matter, 89; those in daily use have emotional equivalents, 123; time as a, 195, 197; results from a compromise, 226. Objective, definition of, 83. Objectivity, of things, 236. Objects, contrasted with progress, in, 112, 219; can be analysed, 112; help to cut up our psychic life, 124 f.; seem to live and grow old, 130; tend to fix changing feelings, 130; in human soul processes, not, 131. Order, of succession, implies space, 101 f. Pain, and pity, 18 f.; as sign of future reaction, 33; intensity of, 35 f.; Darwin on, 37; conceived as distinct thing, 159. Paradox, the Eleatic, 74, 112 f., 240. Parallelism, of physical and psychical series, 146 f. Paralysis, and feeling of effort, 21, 22. Past, no recurrence of, 154, 200 f., 219, 232, 233, 239. Paul, his prediction of Peter's action, 184 ff. Pendulum, counting oscillations of, 104 f.; what do oscillations of, measure, 107 ff; oscillations of, help to cut up our psychic life, 109; spreads out undivided tension of spring, 228. Permeation, see Interpenetration. Peter, Paul's prediction of his action, 184 ff. Photometric experiments, 52 ff. Physics, and sound-vibrations, 46; and degrees of luminous intensity, 52 f.; interested in external cause, 71; physical phenomena and law, 202; Cartesian, 207, 208; Descartes' instantaneous, 208; and forecasting of phenomena, 222, 230. Pillon, F., article on number and space, 75 n. Pitch, of a sound, 44 f. Plateau, his method of measuring luminous sensations, 56. Plato, quoted, 168; Platonic reminiscence, 234. Pleasure, as sign of future reaction, 33 f.; and bodily inclination, 38; keenness of, as inertia of organism, 38; conceived as distinct thing, 159. Poetry, how effects produced, 15. "Possible acts," 174 f., 239. Postulate, Delbœuf's, 60; Fechner's, 60; fundamental, of psychophysics, 65, 70; underlying geometrical representation of voluntary activity, 179. Prediction, astronomical, 117, 192 ff., 198; determinism and, 173, 183 ff., 220; real duration and, 183 ff.; of future actions, 183 ff., 229, 239; probable and infallible, 183 f., and character, 184, 172; hypothetical case of Peter and Paul, 184 ff.; all foreseeing as seeing, 195, 197, 198; of phenomena, and physics, 222, 230. Prefiguring, of future phenomenon in present conditions, 204 ff., 210; two kinds of, 204 ff., 215; as in mathematics, 204 f.; as having idea of possible future act, 211 f. Pressure, sensation of, 47 f. Process, motion as a, in; conscious states not things but, 131, 196; misleading to substitute material symbol for, 190; cannot be analysed, 219. Progress, motion as a, in; not divisible, 112; cannot be represented by geometrical figure, 181; misleading to substitute material symbol for, 190; psychic state as a, 198; from idea to act, 211. Providence, Descartes and grace of, 208. Psychology, descriptive, limits of, 139; sometimes misled by language, 165; deals with intervals of duration and not their extremities, 196; modern, and perception through subjective forms, 222. Psychophysics, and measurement of sensations, 1, 55 ff.; measurement of intensity of light, 52 ff.; Delbœuf's experiments, 52, 56, 58 f., 67 f.; method of mean gradations, 56, 59, 67, 69; method of minimum differences, 64 f., 69; Delbœuf's postulate, 60; Weber's Law, 60; all, involved in transition from stimulus to amount of sensation, 61; Fechner's Law, 61 f.; postulate of, 65, 70; fallacy of all, 65 f., 70; exaggerations of, 225. Quality, interpreted as quantity or magnitude, 9, 13, 39, 42, 43, 48 f., 51, 58, 69, 70; sound as a, 46; sensation of increase qualitative, 48; intensity of light as a, 50; variations in brightness qualitative, 54; psychophysics attempts to measure, 63; no point of contact with quantity, 70; sensation as a, 72, 90; confusion with quantity invades whole series of psychic states, 74; space devoid of, 95; qualitative multiplicity, 105, 121, 128, 224, 226, 229, 239; sensation of mobility qualitative, 112; qualitative distinctions, 121 f., 204; counting as a qualitative progress, 123; of quantity, 123; strokes of a clock estimated by quality of musical phrase, 127; time as, 129; deep-seated conscious states as pure, 137 f., 224; matter stripped of concrete, 205; attempt to explain apparent, of matter, 205; shape as, of matter, 205; qualities of things set up as states, 213; Leibniz and external, 213; psychic phenomena as pure, 224; intensity as compromise between quantity and, 225. Quantity, see also Magnitude: as applied to inner states, I ff.; alleged two kinds of, 3 ff., 72, 225; quality interpreted as, 9, 13, 39, 42, 43, 48 f., 51, 58, 69, 70; and muscular effort, 20 f., 25; of cause, transferred to quality of effect, 42, 70; pitch and, 45, 46; increase of sensation as, 48; difference between hues of a colour as, 60; psychophysics makes intervals between sensations into a, 62, 65, 66, 68 f.; no point of contact between quality and, 70; how quantitative relations set up between sensations, 71; quantitative distinctions, 121 f., 204; without quality, 123; time as, 129; cause of psychic phenomena as, 224; quality as sign of, 224; intensity as compromise between quality and, 225. Rage, Darwin on, 29; James on, 29. Reality, of space, 91 f., 95, no; two kinds of, 97, 110; real duration, 110, 125 ff., 154; of facts for dynamism, 141; of laws for mechanism, 141; time as a, 155; attempt to produce, from algebraical relations, 205; physics treats sensations as signs of, 223. Reason, beliefs adopted without, 135; decisions taken without or against, 170; in ancient hylozoism, 214; the discursive, 229, 237; Kant's doctrine of the Practical, 234; Critique of Pure, 235. Refraction through space, self perceived by, 128, 129, 137, 167, 183, 217, 223; of "things in themselves," Kant's view, 233. Renouvier, on freedom, 237 n. Representation, see Symbolical Representation. Resolution, how feeling leads to, 133, 171. Revue philosophique, referred to, 52 n. Revue scientifique, Tannery's criticism of Fechner in, 67. Rhythm, connecting dancer and spectator, 12; effect in music, 14; in poetry, 15; and architecture, 15; Nature does not command, 16; succession of conscious states compared to, 100. Ribot, on attention and movements, 27 f. Richet, on pain, 35 f.; on disgust, 36. Rood, on changes of hue, 51. Saturation, of a colour, 54. Scale, notes of, why classified as higher and lower, 45 f. Science, eliminates duration from time and mobility from motion, 115 ff., 228; and hypothetical acceleration of motions of universe, 116, 193 ff.; attempts to do away with duration and causality, 208 f.; separates ideas of free effort and necessary determination, 218; attempts to measure intensive quantity, 225; separates extensity and duration, 228, 230; main object of, 230; could deal with time if homogeneous, 234. Scottish philosophers, 72. Sculpture, ancient, 15. Self, whole, reflected in each conscious state, 98, 165; recovery of the fundamental, 100, 128, 129, 231, 233, 236, 240; introduces distinctions derived from external objects into its own states, 109, 125, 237; superficial, with mutually external states, 125, 128, 136, 138, 167, 237; deep-seated, with interpenetrating states, 125, 128, 136, 164, 236; many conscious states never blend with whole mass of, 135, 166, 168; perceived by refraction through space, 128, 129, 137, 167, 183, 217, 223; the two aspects of the, 129 ff., 137, 231; tendency to form secondary, 138, 166; not an association of terms, 139, 159 ff., 164, 165, 226; recourse to living and concrete, necessary to solve problems of causality, freedom, etc., 139; activity of, cannot be compared to that of any other force, 143, 216; perception of, through forms borrowed from external world, 154, 217, 223; self-determination, 165; parasitic, as result of education, 166; free decisions spring from whole or fundamental, 167, 172, 231, 240; covered over with crust of clean-cut psychic states, 167; does not intervene in carrying out every-day acts, 168; uprush of deep-seated, at moment of crisis, 169; distinction of psychic states leads to mechanical conception of, 171; constantly changing and growing, 171, 175 f.; view of, involved in geometrical representation of process of deciding, 176 f.; infallible in affirming its immediate experiences, 183; as a free force, 216, 235; Kant put free, outside space and duration, 233; Kant and phenomenal, 233; as a free cause, 235. Sensations, intensity of, 1 ff., 7 ff., 20 ff., 40, 42, 47, 72 f.; art yielding only, 17; and external causes, 20 ff.; peripheral, and muscular effort, 24, 26; peripheral, and violent emotions, 31; magnitude of, 31, 32, 47, 72; affective and representative: affective, 32 ff., 72 f.; and organic disturbance, 32 f.; pleasure and pain, 33 ff.; affective, and free movements, 33; representative, 39 ff., 73, 90; medium, 41; representative, measured by external causes, 42; of sound, 43 f.; of heat and cold, 46 f., 64; of pressure and weight, 47 f.; increase of, and sensation of increase, 48; as quantity or quality, 48; of movement, 50; of light, 50 ff.; measurement of luminous, 52 ff.; psychophysics attempts to measure, 55 ff., 62, 63, 225; equal and identical, 57, 62, 63, 64, 69; law connecting stimulus and, 60 f.; as quantities, 62, 65, 66; addition of, 64; considered as a sum, 65, 67; how quantitative differences set up between, 71 f.; as pure quality, 72; and space, 92, 93, 95; can space be built up from, 94; simultaneous and identical, 95; of motion, indivisible, 112; influence of language on, 131; not objects but processes, 131; altered by repetition, 131; physics treats, as signs of reality, 223. Series, natural, of numbers, 2, 80; double aspect of each term in a, 124, 226; physical and psychical, 210. "Several," use of, implies space, 122. Shape, as quality of matter, 205. Simplicity, different senses of, in dynamism and mechanism, 141. Simultaneity, implies space, 95; measuring duration and counting, 108 f.; as connecting link between space and duration, 110; definition of, 110; in measuring velocity, 114, 117; used in defining equal intervals of time, 116, 119; in space nothing but, 116, 206, 227; and astronomical prediction, 116 f., 193 ff.; dealt with by mathematics, 119; attempted representation of succession by, 180, 221; all relations not translatable into, are scientifically unknowable, 234. Sleep, and perception of duration, 126. Smell, illustration from associations of, 161 f. Social life, self with well-defined states better adapted to, 128, 137, 139, 167, 231; more important than our inner life, 130; intuition of homogeneous medium as step towards, 138, 163, 236. Solidification, of an act, in space, 112; of changing feelings, promoted by language and external objects, 129 f.; of sensations owing to language, 131; of ideas on surface of consciousness, 135, 166, 168; of conscious states, promotes social life, 231; of conscious states, how brought about, 237. Sorrow, an increasing, 11. Sound, sensations of, 43 ff.; intensity of, 43 ff.; pitch of, 45; why classified as higher and lower, 45 f. Space, and magnitude, 2; introduced into perception of duration, 74; article on number and, 75 n.; intuition of, implied in counting, 77 ff., 83 f., 225; material objects counted in, 85 f.; conscious states not countable unless symbolically represented in, 86 f., 89, 90; idea of impenetrability shows interconnexion of number and, 89; projection of psychic states into, 90, 101, 106, 231; time, but not duration, as spatial, 90 f.; reality of, 91 f., 95, no; as common element in certain sensations, 92; Kant's theory of, 92, 93; nativistic and empirical theories of, 93; Müller's theory, 93; Lotze's theory, 93; Bain's theory, 93; Wundt's theory, 93; attempt to build up, from inextensive sensations, 93 f., 99 f., 222; definition of, 95, 98; as a homogeneous medium without quality, 95 ff., 98; not so homogeneous for animals, 96; intuition of homogeneous, peculiar to man, 97, 236; intuition of, necessary to counting, abstraction and speech, 97; is time, as homogeneous medium, reducible to, 98 f.; time as ghost of, 99; duration expressed in terms of, 101, no; order of succession implies, 101 f.; symbolical representation of succession, as line implies, 103; time as fourth dimension of, 109; simultaneity as connecting link between time and, no; and motion, no ff.; projection of act into, 112, 181; infinitely divisible, 113, 114; as homogeneous element in motion, 115; the only measurable element in motion, 116, 118, 119; nothing but simultaneities in, 116, 206, 227; alone homogeneous, 120; no duration or succession in, 120 227; self perceived by refraction through, 128, 129, 137, 167, 183, 217, 223; intuition of homogeneous, as step towards social life, 138, 163, 236; connexion between perception of, and general ideas, 163; is time space? 181, 190, 221; time confused with, in prediction, 191 ff.; as result of stripping matter of concrete qualities, 205; separated from time by Kant, 222; must be eliminated in studying inner phenomena, 229; Kant confused time with, 232; Kant put the free self outside, 233; we usually live and act in, not in duration, 233; Kant on time and, 233; existence of homogeneous, assumed, 236; as a "form of sensibility," 236; intuition of, what it accomplishes, 236. Spectrum, colours of the, 51, 54, 57. Spencer, H., on gracefulness, 13; on expression of fear, 30. Spinoza, on modes of thought and modes of extension, 147; on causality and apparent succession in time, 208; conception of causality which leads to, 208, 213; Spinozistic mechanism, 209. Spontaneity, idea of, simpler than that of inertia, 141; force as a free, 217; settling down into inertia, 220. Stimulus, law connecting sensation with, 60 ff.; effect of slight but continuous, 106. Subjective, definition of, 83. Succession, attempt to derive extensity from, 99 f., 222; of conscious states compared to rhythm of tune, 100; without distinction, 101; order of, implies distinction and therefore space, 101 f.; cannot be symbolized as a line without idea of space, 103 f.; within the ego succession, without, only externality, 108, 227; exists only for conscious spectator, 108, 120, 227; endosmosis between externality and, 109, 228; none in space, 120, 227; attempt to represent by simultaneity, 180, 221; causality as regular, 202 f.; no regular, in deep-seated psychic states, 203; attempt to transform into inherence, 209; apparent, of phenomena, 201, 227; of phenomena and conscious states, 212, 216; Leibniz and, 213; attributed to things, 228; idea of measurable time arises from compromise between simultaneity and, 228. Suggestion, in art, 14 ff.; in music, 15, 44. Symbolical Representation, necessary to counting of conscious states, 86 f., 89, 90; of a line, implies idea of space, 103; pure duration cannot be measured without, 105; of duration, derived from space, 110; of time as homogeneous medium, 124 f.; of elements of a conscious state, 163; of the self and its feelings, given by determinism, 171; of process of coming to a decision, 175 ff.; leads to determinism, 178; of time as a line, 182; cannot be substituted for dynamic process, 190; of ego, confused by Kant with ego itself, 232. Sympathy, physical, and grace, 13; with Nature. 16; with misfortune, 19. Tannery, J., as critic of Fechner, 67. Taste, as changeable, 131. "Things in themselves," Kant and, 233, 234, 238. Time, sounds not counted in, 87, 91; as homogeneous medium in which conscious states are ranged, 90, 121; as homogeneous medium, nothing but space, 91, 98; distinct from pure duration, 91, 98; is it unbounded medium distinct from space? 98 f.; as ghost of space, 99; attempt to derive extensity from succession in, 99 f.; two possible conceptions of, 100; is it measurable? 107 f.; apparently homogeneous, 107; as dealt with by the astronomer and physicist, 107, 192 ff.; as measured by clocks, 108 f.; as fourth dimension of space, 109; concrete and abstract, 114; science eliminates duration from, 115 f.; definition of equal intervals of, 115; how it comes to be represented as homogeneous, 124 f., 237; as symbolical image of duration, 125 f.; as quality and quantity, 129; confusion of, with concrete duration, 155; is time space? 181, 190, 221; not a line, 181; confused with space, 181 f., 191 f., 232; as a number, 195, 197; separated from space by Kant, 222, 232; idea of measurable, arises from compromise, 228; Kant's mistake about, 232; Kant on space and, 233; science could deal with, if homogeneous, 234; Kant put freedom outside, 235; heterogeneous duration replaced by homogeneous, 237. Tortoise, and Achilles, 113 f. Town, objects in, seem to live and grow old, 129 f. Tradesmen, their avoidance of round numbers, 123. Transcendental Aesthetic, Kant's theory of space in his, 92, 93. Units, those forming a number identical, 76; also distinct, 77; space implied in counting, 79; every number both unit and synthesis of, 80; two kinds, ultimate and provisional, 80 f.; if divisible, then extended, 82; split up by arithmetic, 84; regarded by common sense as indivisible, 84. Unity, attaching to number, 76; all, due to simple act of the mind, 80 f.; of act and of object, 81, 83; Spinoza and the divine, 208. Universe, hypothetical acceleration of motions of, 116, 193 ff.; molecular theory of, 143; vague personality ascribed to, 213. Velocity, measurement of, 107, 114; notion of, analysed, 117; uniform and variable, 117 f. Vis inertiae, 38; vis viva, 151. Vulpian, on hemiplegia, 22. Weber, his law, 60 f. Weight, sensation of, 25 f.; 47 ff. Will, see also Free Will: willing for willing's sake, 157, 158. Words, see language. Wundt, on paralytic's sensation of force, 21; on connexions of vocal and auditory nervous filaments, 44; theory of space, 93. Zeno, on Achilles and tortoise, 113.